This week showed Trump has good reason to be terrified of the Jan. 6 commission
There is so much going on at the moment between the massive spike in COVID due to millions of intransigent holdouts who refuse to get vaccinated and the excruciating events unfolding in Afghanistan that one important story got lost this week: The House January 6th Committee sent letters to eight different government agencies demanding documents and communications regarding administration strategizing to overturn the 2020 election results.
Considering what happened on January 6th and all the open discussions by former President Trump and his allies prior to that date, it's very reasonable to suspect that this evidence exists. But what has surprised people is the sheer scope of their records requests. Here are some examples:
"Documents and communications pertaining to "planning by the White House for legal or other strategies to delay, halt or otherwise impede the electoral count."
"Any documents and communications relating to instructions to stop or delay preparations for transition of administration."
"... communications discussion the recognition of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 Presidential election."
"All documents concerning the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act"
"From November 3, 2020 to the inauguration January 20, 2021, all documents and communications related to martial law."
"All documents and communications concerning Federal law enforcement or military personnel during voting in the 2020 election."
There are requests for documents going back as far as April of 2020, prompting MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to ask Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Ms, what lawmakers were looking for. His reply? They have information that he can't go into but which is credible enough that they are seeking evidence to prove it. Recall, April 2020 was about the time that Trump was starting to rail against mail-in voting, following up on his 2016 strategy by laying the groundwork to reject the results of the election unless he was declared the winner. Perhaps Thompson believes this strategy may have been more formal than it seemed?
The committee is looking at Trump himself and dozens of his closest associates, including his children Ivanka, Eric and Donald Trump Jr, as well as close confidantes such as Roger Stone, along with political friends like Chris Christie. It appears they suspect at least one top GOP congressional aide is involved in publicizing the "Stop the Steal" rally which turned into a violent insurrection. They want information about the Trump henchmen who were placed in important positions throughout the government after the election as he set about invalidating the results. And they are demanding all documentary evidence regarding the planning and funding of the January 5th and 6th rallies and any other plots to slow down the confirmation of the electoral vote.
They also demanded a lot of information from the Pentagon, including documents pertaining to the delay of the transition and any discussion of the potential use of the military to impede the transfer of power. They even asked why the DOD denied that Michael Flynn's brother, Lt. General Charles Flynn, participated in the January 6th meetings about the response to the attacks. Michael Flynn, after all, was intimately involved in the "Stop the Steal" movement.
Probably the most important requests are for information from the Department of Justice, which former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal characterized as serving as "a blank check" throughout the Trump presidency. The DOJ finally said "no" when Trump tried to make them help him declare the election corrupt. "How significant must the demands have been for even them to say no to Donald Trump?" Katyal asked Joy Reid on MSNBC.
It's a comprehensive set of demands investigating whether Trump planned to invoke various executive powers and strategies to remain president despite losing the election. In other words, they are seeking the documentary evidence of Donald Trump's coup attempt.
This comes on the heels of news that the committee plans to require phone companies to preserve all their electronic data around January 6th, including for members of Congress and others who were in communication with Trump on that day or involved in the planning.
Most of the government requests will be answered by the National Archives which keeps all official records. It will be very interesting to see whether members of the administration made "memos to the file" of these events in case this ever came back to haunt them.
Needless to say, Trump was not amused. In fact, he had something of a temper tantrum, putting out this statement:
"The Leftist "select committee" has further exposed itself as a partisan sham and waste of taxpayer dollars with a request that's timed to distract Americans from historic and global catastrophes brought on by the failures of Joe Biden and the Democrats.
Unfortunately, this partisan exercise is being performed at the expense of long-standing legal principles of privilege. Executive privilege will be defended, not just on behalf of my Administration and the Patriots who worked beside me but on behalf of the Office of the President of the United States and the future of our Nation. These Democrats only have one tired trick—political theater—and their latest request only reinforces that pathetic reality."
All of this seems even more necessary in light of NBC's Lester Holt's interview on Thursday night with the Capitol police officer who shot insurrectionist Ashlie Babbitt as she broke through the door that separated the mob from the trapped officials they were hunting on January 6th. He had not been officially identified but felt it necessary to come forward and tell his side of the story and it was compelling, particularly when he pointed out that he would have done the same to protect the life of the president and his family if the same thing happened when they were in the capitol. The right-wing crazies have been calling for his head for weeks, led by Trump who is working overtime to turn Babbitt into an innocent martyr and raise suspicions about this officer whose name is Lt. Michael Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the Capitol Police and who also happens to be Black, which I'm sure had nothing to do with Trump's eagerness to portray him as a crazed gunman.
If you want to see how the right-wing media is handling this, Tucker Carlson is a good example:
Tucker Carlson repeatedly says Michael Byrd "executed" Ashli Babbitt (Babbitt in fact was part of a mob that was trying to lynch members of Congress)pic.twitter.com/hYxPFTff0V— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1630025289
Whether a former president can legally claim executive privilege on evidence that he fomented a coup is a complicated question but either way that's going to take time. The good news is that this investigation is going to be serious and thorough by looking at what happened on January 6th from a very wide perspective which, for the first time with Donald Trump, may succeed in actually getting to the bottom of what he did.


Recalculating Nancy Pelosi’s big win
The preliminary win to advance Joe Biden's huge social services spending bill is being depicted as a parliamentary victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi over a small group of would-be Democratic spoilers. A day or more later, what looks more the case are two things:
It's our American obsession with winning rather than focusing on the basics.
As The New York Times summarized, "For now, the deal that Ms. Pelosi struck amounted to a precarious détente for Democrats that did nothing to resolve tensions between the moderate and liberal flanks or end the jockeying for political leverage."
It's an important distinction because there is no bill yet for infrastructure spending—small, medium, or huge—in place yet, and, other than general support for the substance over the timing of votes, there are lots of ways that this discussion about investing in our next 10 years still can go south.
As it stands, this contested vote essentially only lays the groundwork for Democrats to force through both a $1 trillion bill to fix roads, bridges, airports and a lot of rural broadband wiring and the three-times larger bill to address spending on "human infrastructure" that includes an array of improvements to universal pre-K education, health and prescription drug access and pricing, expanded Medicare coverage, child-care tax write-offs, paid leave and tax increases for the wealthy and corporations.
It's an important step, of course, but what we should remember is that Pelosi was forced to deal with a handful of "moderates" who basically don't support the full package.
What Pelosi Did
In case you were living your life and managed to avoid worrying about Congress, the group of nine moderates wanted an immediate vote on the already Senate-passed bipartisan hard infrastructure bill. Pelosi wanted to twin the two spending packages. What happed was, according to a variety of press reports and congressional statements, was extended legislative negotiation.
Pelosi's particular way out was to link all the spending under a singular "rule" vote that would set a Sept. 27 deadline for a vote on the roads bill, setting up the possibility for House committees to vet the social services programs and price them for a simultaneous vote. She won the day, but, obviously, there's not a lot of time to assess both the actual cost of these sprawling programs and to ensure the politics for passage.
Basically, Democrats want to use the so-called "budget reconciliation" rules to cram all the spending together in bills that can be passed by as little as a single-vote majority – something that is a real prospect in the Senate. In the House, there was an eight-vote majority for this measure, which is likely the maximum it can achieve in an up-and-down vote for final approval.
Politico and others have attempted to revisit all the back-and-forth conversations and late-night haggling between Pelosi and her closest minions and the group of nine, headed by Rep. Jeff Gottheimer (D-NY). It was a serious enough effort to force delay, and to put the outcome in doubt.
To summarize, it turns out that Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Mad.) and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) were able to separate and exploit individual concerns among the nine and to persuade them that they all need to pull in a single direction. We'll never know if there were individual promises.
Afterward, Pelosi praised the rebel group for its "enthusiasm" while announcing her commitment to pass the infrastructure bill it had opposed.
Topping off the 220-212 vote on the eventual spending bill was approval for a voting rights measure that the House passed soon after.
Our Focus
This House showdown reminds us of the power of just a handful of people to hold up approval of legislation – or court decisions, or even who's giving advice within the White House.
We keep thinking that we go to the polls every two or four years with the idea of setting an understandable direction for our democracy. But then we keep tripping up over those one- or two- or even nine-vote groups that decide that they are smarter than the rest of us.
We will go through this same discussion over what constitutes a fitting social services safety net for America when this big Biden spending package comes back to the Senate, and we must depend on the peculiar waverings of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and Krysten Sinema, D-Ariz.
We think we're voting for an agenda when we cast ballots for Biden or Donald Trump only to re-discover daily that there always is a single vote over in the corner of the House or Senate that insists on standing in the way of popular support, whether the issue is more gun control, abortion, environmental rules, or economic issues.
It's bad enough that we have gridlock resulting from near-equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. It seems worse when one side or the other can't line up its own folks – or free them from party commitments to specific legislative agendas. We expect that democracy is messy, but not daily.